Delhi Court January 2005 Judgments

M.S. Metal Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(100)ECC191

1. The appellant filed this appeal against the order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner(Appeals) whereby the benefit of Notification No.26/2000-Cus Dated 1.3.2000 was denied to the appellant.2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant made import of Copper Rectangular Strip of Sri Lankan origin and filed a Bill of Entry claiming the benefit of Notification No. 26/2000-Cus. the benefit of notification was denied on the ground that the Central Board of Excise & Customs issued a circular No. 73/2003-Cus dt. 13.8.03 which prohibits the import of copper strips and profiles of Sri Lankan origin under the notification No. 26/2000-Cus.3. The contention of the appellant is that the notification No.26/2000-Cus provides 'Nil' rate of customs duty on the basis of certificate of origin issued by Deptt. of Commerce under Indo-Sri Lanka Free Trade Agreement. The contention is that this notification was not rescinded. The Department of Revenue only issued circular whereby it was informed ...

Mala Kumar Engineers Pvt. Ltd. (Mke) Vs. B. Seenaiah and Co. (Projects ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2005(1)ARBLR264(Delhi); II(2005)BC501; 117(2005)DLT183

Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. Respondent No. 3, National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) awarded works of construction of 4 laneand strengthening of the existing 2 lane of the NH-79 from KM 120.00 to KM 183.00 to respondent No. 1, B. Seenaiah & Co.(Projects) Limited (BSCPL). To execute the contract, BSCPL engaged the services of M/s. Ganesh Engineering Company (GEC) for quarrying rock boulders. BSCPL engaged the services of the petitioner (MKE) for moving the rock boulders after extraction by GEC from the point of extraction to the crusher site.2. Terms of payment as per agreement dated 15.7.2002 required BSCPL to pay to the petitioner as under:-'6.0. In consideration for the services provided by MKE, the BSCPL shall pay NKE Rs. 27/- (Indian rupees 27/- only) for every metric tonne up to 2 km lead from quarry to crusher.'3. It may be noted that there is another clause being clause No. 7 whereunder petitioner was to be paid for similar services at the rate of Rs. 20/- per tonne, but this r...

Rajinder Singh Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 117(2005)DLT141; 2005(81)DRJ301

Mukul Mudgal, J.1. This writ petition involves the oft repeated questions of the remedy for enforcement to be adopted when an amount computable and available under an Award is sought to be recovered by the workman from the employer. It is not in dispute that an Award in favor of the petitioner was notified on 7th July, 2000. The following is the operative portion of the award:-' 16. In view of the matter I find that the termination order dated 8.3.96 is neither just and proper and is liable to be set aside. It is also found that the workman is entitled for his reinstatement in the service with continuity of service and its all other benefits from the date of the termination. He is entitled to get full back wages equal to the wages paid to his counterpart regular employee from the date of his initial appointment. The term of reference is decided in the like manner and the Award is given accordingly. The order is passed as to cost.'Since the said award has become final not having been ch...

Lohmann Rausher Gmbh Vs. Medisphere Marketing Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 117(2004)DLT95; 2005(80)DRJ9

Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. This is a suit under Order xxxvII of the Code of Civil Procedure praying for a decree in the sum of EURO 56572 together with interest @ 18% per annum in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant. Suit is based on two invoices, identical worded, save and except quantity and description of material and the amount payable. Leave to defend is sought by and under is No. 5607/2004.2. Raising of the two invoices dated 9.5.2000 and 13.9.2000 is admitted by the defendant. Receipt of goods under the two invoices has been admitted by the defendant.3. Grounds on which leave to defend the suit is prayed are two:-(i) That an invoice is not a document which falls within the ambit of Order xxxvII Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and(ii) Goods supplied were defective and of sub-standard quality.4. Pleas have been taken in the application for leave to defend pertaining to the authorization in favor of Dr. Cosima Paul who has signed the suit and verified the pleadings...

Bhushan Steel and Strips Ltd. Vs. Bhartiya Loha Udyog P. Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2005(81)DRJ350

T.S. Thakur, J.1. The statement of the plaintiff was recorded by the Local Commissioner appointed for the purpose. The evidence of the plaintiff was, after cross-examination, closed by the Commissioner against which order the defendant appears to have made a grievance in this Court with a prayer that the defendant should he permitted to further cross-examine the plaintiff. This prayer was declined by Mukul Mudgal, J. in terms of his Order dated 1st November, 2004. Learned counsel for the defendant points out that she has preferred an appeal against the said Order which is coming up for admission before the Division Bench on 19th January, 2005. She further submits that the pendency of the appeal notwithstanding, the defendant is ready to go on with his evidence.2. By order dated 29th November, 2004, learned counsel for the parties were directed to furnish a chart indicating whether any portion of the affidavit to be treated as examination-in-chief of the witnesses was beyond the pleadin...

C.D.R. Medical Centre Vs. Kailash Nath Srivastava

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

J.D. Kapoor, President: 1. This is a case of medical negligence arising out of an operation for Gall Bladder stones performed upon the respondent by the doctors of the appellant medical centre. Vide impugned order dated 5.7.2003 passed by the District Forum it was observed that appellant was guilty of gross medical deficiency, unfair trade practice as well as medical negligence as a result of which the respondent had to lose his wife and directed the appellant to pay a sum of Rs. 1.5 lacs to the respondent as compensation besides Rs. 5,000/- as cost of litigation. 2. The respondents wife was admitted in the appellants hospital on 25.5.1993 at about 4.00 p.m. At about 6.00 p.m. one Dr. Dutta came and on the old investigation of the patient gave the green signal for the operation on 26.5.1993. But the operation was delayed as the machine for conducting the operation was hired from outside which had not arrived on the date fixed for the operation. On the next date the operation was conduc...

Cce Vs. Hero Cycles Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. In this appeal, the Revenue has contested the correctness of the impugned order-in-original, dropping the recovery of the modvat credit, against the respondents 2. We have heard both sides. The Revenue has sought to deny the modvat credit to the respondents on the goods in question on the ground that these were inputs and the credit should have been taken as such and not by treating the same as 'Capital Goods'.3. On the other hand, the plea of the respondents had been that, the goods in question are parts of the capital goods and they had rightly taken the credit on the goods as such. They had also taken the plea that the demand is time-barred as the extended period could not be invoked.4. We have gone through the record and we find that there is no tangible evidence to substantiate the stand of the Revenue. The goods in question could not be said to be inputs as the same were parts of the Capital Goods installed in the factory premises of the respondents.The respondents had even f...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Advance Structural (P) Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(183)ELT262TriDel

1. In this appeal, the Revenue has contested the correctness of the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) vide which the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has reversed the order-in-original confirming the duty demand against the respondents after re-quantification in terms of the remand order of the Tribunal dated 30th March, 1999.2. The learned SDR has contended that the excisability/durability of the goods in question was finally decided by the Tribunal vide Final Order dated 30th March, 1999 and the matter was remanded to the adjudicating authority only for re-quantification of the duty demand and as such the learned Commissioner (Appeals) could not travel beyond that order and record the finding that the goods in question were not excisable. The learned SDR has relied upon the observations of the Apex Court recorded in Para 70 of the Mafatlal Indus. v. U.O.I. -1997 (89) E.L.T. 247 (S.C).3. On the other hand, the learned Counsel has contended that the learned Commissioner (Appe...

Assistant Commissioner of Wealth Vs. Dr. H.R. Virmani

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)99TTJ(Delhi)242

1. WTA Nos. 54/Del/1998 and 55/Del/1998 are appeals filed by the Revenue while WTA Nos. 17/Del/1998 and 18/Del/1998 are appeals by the assessee and all these appeals are directed against the common order dt. 25th Nov., 1997, of CIT(A)-XVIII, New Delhi, relating to the asst.yrs. 1991-92 and 1992-93. The grounds of appeal of the Revenue in both the appeals are identical and it read as follows : 1. That the learned CWT(A) erred in law and on facts in reducing the value of plot from Rs. 25,39,50,217 to Rs. 97,00,425. 2. That the order of learned CWT(A) be set aside and that of AO be restored.2. The ground of appeal of the assessee which is identical in both the appeals challenges the addition of Rs. 97,00,425 sustained by the CIT(A) representing the value of an alleged open plot of land measuring 1,847.70 sq. mtrs., marked as plot "Z" by the Asstt. Valuation Officer in the map prepared by him and annexed to his report.3. The facts and circumstances under which the present appeals arise ar...

Dang and Co. (P) Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)94ITD29(Delhi)

1. This is an appeal- by assessee against the order of AO passed under Section 158BC/254 relating to block period for asst. yrs. 1986-87 to 4th Sept., 1995.2. A search and seizure operation was conducted on 14th/l5th Sept., 1995 under Section 132(1) of the IT Act at the premises of the assessee. Assessment under Section 158BC was completed on 30th Sept., 1996, determining undisclosed income at Rs. 2,01,58,230. The assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal and the Tribunal set aside the order of the AO and matter was sent back to decide the same afresh, after affording proper opportunity to the assessee.3. Fresh assessment was completed on 28th March, 2002 at an income of Rs. 55,50,000. Now the assessee is in appeal here before the Tribunal.4. During the course of hearing of appeal, it was stated that AO has made an addition of Rs. 30,000 relating to asst. yr. 1991-92; Rs. 20,000 relating to asst. yr. 1992-93 and Rs. 55 lakhs relating to asst.yr. 1994-95. It was stated that amounts of ...